The Subject of Taxes
April 15th, 2012
Tax season again. That magical time of year when, with fear in my heart, I mail my income extortion papers to the violent gang who steals my property under threat of violence. And now that it’s all over my heart has gone from fear to grief as I contemplate the uses these thugs will find for my “fair share.” How much of my wealth will be used to pay the salaries of the disconnected bureaucrats who tap our phones? How much of my wealth will be used to arm the jackboots who demand our papers, and invade our homes? How much of my wealth will be used to terrorize foreign families? How much blood is on my hands? Were I a braver man I would refuse. But at least I am still free enough to share my thoughts about the nature of the gang.
There is a wisdom in the subtle distinction between a “subject” and a “citizen.” By the simplest legal definition “subject” simply means, “not exempt from tax,” but politically a subject is “a person who owes allegiance to a nation.” A citizen is “a person who owes allegiance to a nation and is entitled to protection by and from the government.” So, to be a citizen, and not a subject there must be a social contract were one exchanges allegiance for protection. Do be clear, I don’t believe any such contract exists. If it does, please tell me where I can read it. None the less, the distinction rests upon whether or not we are entitled to protection by and from the government. Consider these:
June 27, 2005, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court voted 7-to-2 that citizens did not have a constitutional right to police protection.
February 22, 1989, in the case of Deshaney v. Winnebago City Social Services the court ruled that there is, “no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.”
December 21, 1981, in the case of Warren v. District of Columbia the court ruled, “it is a fundamental principle of American law that a government and it’s agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”
The list of cases goes all the way back to the 1800s. American courts have ruled over and over that government has no obligation to protect you or provide you with any services. Here’s why. If the government had any legal obligation it could be held liable when it failed. So, instead protection is regarded as a collective right, not an individual right. Can you imagine if I ran an insurance company this way? You pay me month after month and then when you get in an accident and file a claim I respond, “Well, I don’t actually have any obligation to cover your personal damages because this isn’t ‘individual’ insurance, it’s ‘collective’ insurance. The majority of our clients didn’t have accidents.” Bollocks!
Imagine if you broke some arbitrary law and got hauled into court and you argued to the judge, “Well, I don’t actually have any individual duty to obey these laws. Americans ‘collectively’ obey the law.” You’d be in a jail cell in about 30 seconds. But the government gets away with it because they have the monopoly on violence.
No liability, ergo no obligation. No obligation, ergo no valid contact. No valid social contract, ergo we subjects not citizens. We are American subjects, not American citizens.
They even refer to us as subjects in their own documents. Here’s Executive Order #6102 where President Roosevelt confiscated gold and silver owned by Americans right out of their safety deposit boxes.
“I, as President do declare that the national emergency still exists; that the continued private hoarding of gold and silver by subjects of the United States poses a grave threat to peace, equal justice, and well-being of the United States; and that appropriate measures must be taken immediately to protect the interest of our people. Therefore, pursuant to the above authority, I hereby proclaim that such gold and silver holdings are prohibited…” Proclamation by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Roosevelt correctly refers to the legal residents of the United States as “subjects” not “citizens.” Perhaps because he understands that in addition to not being entitled to protection by the government… we are not entitled to protection from the government.
And don’t forget to visit our official website to learn more about the Silver Circle Movie:http://SilverCircleMovie.com
